And throughout history, marriage has been connected with men’s domination over women, in so much that throughout history a woman and the children she bears become a man’s property as part of the marriage contract.

Then in the 20th century we decided that wasn’t right and we let women vote, own property and keep their children after divorce.

Aug 10, 2012 at 9:56 am · @Reply ·

LandStander

@QJ201: I know right? It is almost as if everyone has forgotten that “traditional marriage” was not one man and one woman, it was one (white) man and his property. Or an arrangement to establish treaties for nations. When did this “one man, one woman, to encourage procreation is tradition” bullcrap come about?

Aug 10, 2012 at 10:12 am · @Reply ·

Felix

A very bigoted decision obviously written by NOM.

Aug 10, 2012 at 1:52 pm · @Reply ·

Ann

Good decision. Let the voice of the people be heard as voted by the Hawaii people … that marriage is between a man and a woman.
What a shame that judges attacked democracy in the case of California’s prop 8, where they ignored the people’s legitimate decision based on their own personal beliefs.
Whatever your opinion on the definition of marriage, every sensible person should agree that the people should make the decision.

Aug 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm · @Reply ·

LandStander

@Ann: Yeah Ann, just like everyone voted and decided interracial couples get to marry…

Oh wait, that was the California Supreme Court who was the first court to overturn an anti-miscegenation law (in 1948). The same court, doing the same thing, that you call an “attack on democracy”.

What you call an “attack on democracy”, judges overruling laws that discriminate, is the reason interracial marriage is legal in California.

But let me guess, you think that those laws should have stayed on the books, because overturning the law would be the courts “ignoring the peoples legitimate decision based on their own personal beliefs.”

Your funny!

Aug 10, 2012 at 3:48 pm · @Reply ·

LandStander

Almost forgot to add, as this is an important piece

In 1948, about 90% of American adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it.

Aug 10, 2012 at 3:59 pm · @Reply ·

Manuel

Let’s take a vote to see if “Ann” should have her eyes gouged out by a red-hot poker. Majority rules.

Throughout the history of the United States, the vision you have has never existed. Ballots and referendums are something far removed from either civil rights or religious political issues. So, no, I don’t think most people would agree this need be democratic. I think that’s a vestige of selective conservatism.

I’m a real conservative. And no real believer in American patriotism, who actually knows the history of our nation, would oppose courts deciding this issue. And frankly, a real conservative should feel obliged, at least, to support same sex marriage by electoral vote.

Aug 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm · @Reply ·

4starmovie

If it were not for the perseverance of a minority demanding their human rights, you wouldn’t even have a the right to vote in Hawaii against same sex marriage. You can thank the women’s suffrage for that you stupid bitch.

Aug 10, 2012 at 6:37 pm · @Reply ·

Me

Yea and women were not supposed to vote because it was claimed to be ” the word of God”. Religion has done more blaspheming against God and his word, than anyone else.

Once again, gays are trying to bring up other groups history to defend and justify their own plight. What would you do if you couldn’t exploit the past for your own personal gain? Seems to me the gay crusade is a tag-a-long movement that likes to exploit and hitch a ride on the train of progress made by other minorities.

Aug 10, 2012 at 9:24 pm · @Reply ·

PeterSalt

Funny isn’t it – when a Judge supports the majority of people AND the democratic process he is bigoted” according to Felix.
But when they support a 2% minority who want to normalise a lifestyle that is neither innate or biological, then they are right. How bigoted is that?
And before you tryto tell me ‘animals do it, so it must be natural’, I will remind you that they eat each other too – is that then OK for humans?
Even the APA knows homosexuality is not genetic or innate so don’t quote them either.

Aug 10, 2012 at 9:34 pm · @Reply ·

HI5HO

@PeterSalt: Omigod Petersalt, don’t let our fight for marriage equality lead you to eat humans. That’s not Okay. Do you understand? Do not eat humans because gays are asking for equal rights.
Unless of course, you’re a Uruguayan rugby player whose airplane crash lands on an Andean Mountain and you have to eat your dead teammates to survive. Then it’s okay. I’d say, start with Ethan Hawke since it was one of the last films he made before he got ugly.

Aug 10, 2012 at 10:38 pm · @Reply ·

Alex

Fantastic I know where to go if I suddenly become straight and want to be a womanizer and have multiple wives from concubines to slaves. Be silent and make me a sammich. Seriously all women should be just as offended as gays whenever the words “traditional marriage” are uttered.

Aug 11, 2012 at 2:30 am · @Reply ·

Daez

@Biting Truth: If you knew anything at all about history you would realize that the gays are DIRECTLY responsible for each and every minority rights movement. Gays led the women’s suffrage movement and gays also led the civil rights movement. MLK Jr had a gay man as his number one adviser. The same man who wrote the “I Have a Dream Speech.”

The Judge is merely a bigot in a sea of fair-minded upholders of the US Constitution.

Aug 12, 2012 at 2:09 am · @Reply ·

F Stratford

This should be a warnIng to all of us to fight fake “research” like the one produced in Austin to “prove” that lesbian parenting is substandard.

It was referred to in the Hawaii decision. The consequences of bad acamedic “research” is damning, indeed

Aug 12, 2012 at 3:04 am · @Reply ·

J Bryson

So, does that mean that single mothers on state benefits must now have the baby daddy there since the court has stated the children should be raised by a mother and father? No divorce if children are involved? Will all marriages now be required to produce children? Seems to me he just made new rules for the hetro-marriage.